McDermott, who at the time was the panel's senior Democrat, failed to meet his obligations as a committee leader, said a report released two days after Congress adjourned for the year. The panel took no action other than the report.

"Rep. McDermott's secretive disclosures to the news media . . . risked undermining the ethics process regarding" former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the committee said. It said McDermott's actions "were not consistent with the spirit of the committee's rules."

The ethics complaint stems from a tape recording made by a Florida couple, who gave it to McDermott in January 1997. The tape recorded then-Speaker Gingrich, R-Ga., in a December 1996 conference call with GOP leaders regarding a separate ethics investigation of Gingrich.

McDermott leaked the tape to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The New York Times, which published stories on the case in January 1997.

Gingrich, who was heard on the call telling House Republicans how to react to the ethics charges against him, was later fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the House.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against McDermott in a related civil case in March. The 2-1 opinion upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott had violated the rights of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who was heard on the 1996 call. Boehner, then a Gingrich lieutenant, is now House majority leader.

The full nine-member appeals court vacated the three-judge ruling this spring and heard new arguments in the case in October. A ruling is expected next year.

McDermott, in an e-mail to The Associated Press, said he was pleased the ethics panel had concluded he did not violate overall House rules.

"I am also pleased with the committee's acknowledgment that pending litigation in the federal court will decide the question of law over the First Amendment issues involved," he said.

Because of the pending civil case, McDermott said he would not offer additional comment.

Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, a former ethics committee member who filed a complaint against McDermott in November 2004, said he was disappointed the ethics panel did not sanction McDermott.

"I'm not sure this decision reflects well upon the House as a whole or the ethics process," Hobson said.

He said he might change his long-standing support for an internal ethics panel and consider replacing it with an independent inspector general to investigate House members.

U.S. senators Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa (4th L), Jim McDermott of Washington (5th L) and Michael Honda of California (2nd from R) pose with South Korea's lawmakers and officials in front of the headquarter of the Kaesong Industrial Park in the North Korean border city of Kaesong, about 70 km (45 miles) northwest of South Korean capital Seoul in this December 1, 2006 handout photo. The three U.S. lawmakers crossed into to North Korea on Friday to visit the industrial park in North Korea, local media reported. - REUTERS/Unification Ministry/Handout (NORTH KOREA).

McDermott broke spirit of rules but faces no punishment http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/121206/mcdermott.htmlThe Hill - Dec 11 6:10 PM The House ethics committee found that Rep. Jim McDermotts (D-Wash.) 1997 leaking of a secretly taped phone call to the media among House Republican leaders, including current Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), is inconsistent with the spirit of the applicable [House] rules.

These are the actions of a defeated and cowering Republican party. They know that the Democrats are coming in with the slime-maching on full power. ANY dissent will be met with an all-out sliming in the press and in the committee rooms.

The Republicans have already dropped the white flag and are running for cover.

19
posted on 12/12/2006 12:22:16 PM PST
by Bryan24
(When in doubt, move to the right....)

"violated ethics standards by giving reporters access to an illegally taped telephone call involving Republican leaders a decade ago" ______________________________________ A decade ago. Foley was gone by the afternoon the story it or am I mistakes?

The real failure in this entire matter was the lack of investigation into the 2 Florida Democrat operatives that took the fall for this listening to phone calls. I don't believe for a minute that they just happened to hear Gingrich. Gingrich was tapped by professionals. I believed it then and I still believe it.

The Truth of the matter regarding alleged Gingrich fine is below. What has been quoted in this article is not only wrong but it is the RAT spin:

Jan. 11, 2006 | Dear Editor: (Slate)

In Michael Scherer's piece ("Newt: I'm Shocked, Shocked by Abramoff Scandal!"), he falsely asserts that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was required to "pay a $300,000 penalty" for "misusing nonprofit organizations for political purposes, personally benefiting from political contributions and giving false statements to ethics investigators."

Mr. Scherer should have checked the facts first. Democrats filed 84 politically motivated ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich. All of them were found to be without merit. The last three were dismissed on Oct. 10, 1998. The fact is, not a single ethics charge filed against Speaker Gingrich was ever found to be based in fact -- not one.

During the investigation into the bogus charge of "misusing nonprofit organizations for political purposes," a letter responding to an inquiry by the Ethics Committee prepared and filed by a Gingrich lawyer did contain an inaccuracy. When Gingrich learned about the discrepancy, he personally accepted responsibility for the misstatement, corrected the record, and agreed to reimburse the Ethics Committee for the cost of that investigation.

The voluntary reimbursement did not stem from the phony charge, but was paid because of the error made by counsel during the investigation -- an investigation that concluded no wrongdoing by the speaker whatsoever and was dismissed by the bipartisan Ethics Committee as were all 84 of the other charges. It was specifically not a penalty according to the Ethics Committee agreement.

The fallout in the case resulted in an IRS investigation and a federal court case. Ultimately, Speaker Gingrich was cleared of any wrongdoing by the bipartisan Ethics Committee, the IRS and a federal judge.

So it is simply wrong to mislead readers by suggesting that Speaker Gingrich paid a fine, misused nonprofit organizations or personally benefited in any way from political contributions. The facts show that he took responsibility for an error during the investigation and reimbursed the committee from his personal funds making him extraordinarily well-qualified to be an outspoken critic on the current and very real ethics scandal.

this happened, what TEN YEARS AGO! - and just now, right after the repubbies GIVE Congress to the democrats in the most lame-handed foolishly run campaign EVR (Bob Dole's included!0 they are just now releasing their report.

Yeah.

these guys really did know how the rule, didn't they.

29
posted on 12/12/2006 12:51:23 PM PST
by Robert A. Cook, PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)

Too many like Frist have made their careers on the success of their parents. Even though they sometimes may be bright, as Frist is,academically they frequently attend the same Universities as the wealthy liberal elite of the country. With this social and academic background they often feel entitled to success and believe that their ideas have greater weight than those of their constituents. These ideas frequently lean in the same direction as their liberal alumni colleagues. They may have a conservative economic outlook but will frequently lean to the social liberal side when it comes time to show some guts and fight. In other words they feel superior to the great unwashed electorate.

This is basically my definition of a RINO.

This is also why I think we need to implement conservative affirmative action by requiring that all members of congress hire only graduates of the Universities in their state. Possibly with a requirement that they be within, say, 5 years of graduation. This way the "permanent group" of people who run Congressional offices will develop some diversity and remember where they came from. This should also be required of all committee staffs.

The most ethical congress ever- Perhaps these criminals are a step up in ethics and it really is 'the most ethical' congress ever- perhaps they weeded out the 'really bad guys' and went with the really disgusting criminals' instead. http://sacredscoop.com?

Gee, what could possibly reflect badly against a bunch of dirty sleazy morons who extort money from the public. What a surprise. By the way, Baghdad Jim is a traitor and should have been tried, convicted and shot.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.